Julian wrote on 01/16/2004 03:00:17 PM:
> Jason wrote in an off-list mail:
> > ... But I think it's fine, and in fact advisible,
> > to establish the basic vocabulary of bindings in 2518 and let
> > the bindings draft just cover the optional issues and
> > clarifications for bindings and multiple bindings.
>
> I do agree that RFC2518bis *should* remove any inconsistencies with
> BIND, where present. Note that one major problem was the definition for
> DELETE, which (in RFC2518) required to remove all other bindings to the
> resource as well. AFAIK, this has been fixed in RFC2518bis.
>
> So besides the fact that RFC2518bis talks about "internal members"
> rather than bindings, I'm not really sure that anything *needs* to be
> fixed. Geoff?
It probably is worth making a pass through 2518bis to make sure that
all the language that deals with internal members is compatible with
bind semantics, but I didn't find any problems of that sort last time
I read through 2518bis (but I wasn't specifically looking for that, so
I could have missed something).
Cheers,
Geoff